Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
)
)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
11-CV-2509-LHK
)
ALL ACTIONS.
No.
)
_____________________________ )
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PATRICK FLYNN
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Reported By:
KATHLEEN WILKINS, CSR #10068, RPR-RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 1
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:31:35
1
Q.
02:31:39
2
to as hands-off or -- sorry.
02:31:45
3
question.
02:31:46
4
02:31:48
5
02:31:51
6
those companies in any way other than don't call
02:31:59
7
in to these companies.
02:32:05
8
02:32:11
9
A.
And was -- were those companies referred
Sure.
Let me just ask that
Sure.
I don't -- I don't recall if we labeled
Q.
Do you recall why a company was added or
removed from that list?
02:32:14 10
MR. RUBIN:
02:32:16 11
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
I didn't see any additions
02:32:18 12
or -- or subtractions, you know, from the list.
02:32:23 13
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:32:24 14
Q.
So -- I see.
02:32:26 15
Did you have any understanding of why
02:32:28 16
the companies that were on the list were on the
02:32:30 17
list?
02:32:31 18
A.
I believe the one company that I
02:32:34 19
remember being on the list was NVIDIA, and that
02:32:37 20
was because, I believe, that they were -- and
02:32:41 21
still are, to my knowledge -- a key vendor to
02:32:44 22
Apple.
02:32:45 23
Q.
02:32:49 24
that list?
02:32:50 25
A.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
Do you recall whether ATI was also on
ATI could have been on that list.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 64
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:32:52
1
Q.
Was ATI a key vendor for Apple?
02:32:55
2
A.
I -- I don't -- I don't know.
02:32:57
3
02:33:04
4
02:33:05
5
02:33:06
6
02:33:08
7
02:33:16
8
02:33:20
9
I don't
know.
Q.
Do you recall Google ever being on that
list?
A.
I don't ever recall Google being a
company that we couldn't cold call folks.
Q.
Okay.
Do you recall Adobe being a -- a
hands-off company or a do-not-cold-call company?
02:33:23 10
A.
I do recall Adobe being on the list.
02:33:26 11
Q.
Do you have any understanding of why
02:33:27 12
Adobe was on the list?
02:33:28 13
A.
I -- I don't.
02:33:29 14
Q.
Okay.
02:33:30 15
A.
I believe it was in regards to some
02:33:34 16
vendor relationship.
02:33:45 17
02:33:47 18
Q.
Do you have any understanding of who was
responsible for putting a company on that list?
02:33:55 19
A.
No, I don't.
02:33:57 20
Q.
Do you have any understanding that
02:33:59 21
Steve Jobs had a role in the companies that appear
02:34:03 22
on that list?
02:34:04 23
MR. RUBIN:
02:34:06 24
THE WITNESS:
02:34:08 25
Objection.
Form.
I'm -- I'm sure that Steve
had influence on that -- on that -- on that list.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 65
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:34:12
1
02:34:13
2
02:34:16
3
MR. RUBIN:
02:34:19
4
THE WITNESS:
02:34:20
5
of people, and so I know that, you know, part of
02:34:28
6
Apple's success is having key partners.
02:34:32
7
I believe he was, you know, pretty involved in,
02:34:35
8
you know, developing and building those
02:34:37
9
partnerships.
02:34:38 10
BY MR. HARVEY:
Q.
Objection.
Form.
Steve connected with a lot
So -- and
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:34:40 11
02:34:42 12
And what leads you to be sure of that?
Q.
Do you believe that he was also involved
in -- well, strike that.
02:34:57 13
Do you have any understanding of whether
02:34:59 14
Danielle Lambert had any role with respect to the
02:35:02 15
companies that were on that list?
02:35:04 16
A.
I don't believe she did.
02:35:05 17
Q.
Okay.
02:35:09 18
What leads you to think that she
did not have a role?
02:35:14 19
A.
02:35:16 20
execution.
02:35:25 21
privy to those discussions that -- you know, at
02:35:28 22
Steve's level with external folks.
02:35:42 23
Q.
Well, her role was focused on -- on
And so I just don't think she was
Do you recall how this list was
02:35:44 24
maintained at Apple in the sense of how did you
02:35:49 25
know about it?
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 66
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:47:39
1
A.
I do.
02:47:40
2
Q.
Do you have any understanding of who she
02:47:42
3
02:47:43
4
A.
No, I don't.
02:47:44
5
Q.
Okay.
02:47:46
6
Bruce Chizen and others at Adobe that Bruce and
02:47:50
7
Steve Jobs have an agreement that we are not to
02:47:54
8
solicit any Apple employees and vice versa?
02:47:56
9
A.
I do see that.
02:47:58 10
Q.
Does that refresh your recollection of
was at the time?
Do you see how she wrote to
02:48:00 11
whether Apple's restriction with respect to Adobe
02:48:03 12
was reciprocated?
02:48:06 13
A.
It does not, no.
02:48:08 14
Q.
Okay.
If we can talk about Google
02:48:34 15
briefly.
And this concerns when you were still at
02:48:37 16
Apple.
02:48:49 17
on Apple's hands-off list?
Do you recall when Google was first placed
02:48:51 18
A.
I do not.
02:48:52 19
Q.
Do you recall why Google was placed on
02:48:54 20
the list?
02:48:58 21
A.
I don't, no.
02:48:59 22
Q.
Okay.
Are you familiar with an e-mail
02:49:12 23
list that was used at Apple in 2005 that read,
02:49:16 24
"U.S. recruiting all@group.apple.com"?
02:49:22 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
A.
I don't specifically remember that, no.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 75
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:49:29
1
Q.
If you could take a look at what's been
02:49:32
2
02:49:42
3
02:49:44
4
02:49:47
5
A.
I'm finished.
02:49:52
6
Q.
Okay.
02:49:54
7
there's that e-mail list that I just described to
02:49:56
8
you.
02:49:59
9
this e-mail list was?
previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 563.
And just let me know once you've had
chance to look at it.
02:50:01 10
If you look in the "to" field,
Does that refresh your recollection of what
A.
Once again, I don't remember that
02:50:04 11
specific group, that title, but I would assume
02:50:07 12
that it's the whole Apple -- or US recruitment
02:50:14 13
team at Apple.
02:50:15 14
Q.
And that -- that included you, correct?
02:50:18 15
A.
At that time, yes.
02:50:19 16
Q.
So you received this e-mail from
02:50:21 17
Danielle Lambert on February 26th, 2005, correct?
02:50:26 18
A.
Yes.
02:50:27 19
Q.
Okay.
02:50:30 20
Here it says:
"Please add Google to your
02:50:32 21
hands-off list.
02:50:36 22
not to recruit from one another, so
02:50:38 23
if you hear of any recruiting
02:50:39 24
they're doing against us, please be
02:50:42 25
sure to let me know.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
We recently agreed
Please also be
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 76
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:50:45
1
sure to honor our side of the deal."
02:50:47
2
02:50:50
3
go back and look at my notes -- were you directly
02:50:52
4
reporting to Ms. Lambert?
02:50:59
5
02:51:00
6
02:51:01
7
02:51:04
8
02:51:06
9
A.
I think she was, yes.
02:51:10 10
Q.
Okay.
At this time -- and apologies, I have to
A.
At this time, I -- I don't believe I
was.
Q.
Okay.
So at this time she was the head
of HR at Apple?
Does this refresh your
02:51:11 11
recollection of why Google was placed on Apple's
02:51:16 12
hands-off list?
02:51:18 13
MR. RUBIN:
02:51:19 14
THE WITNESS:
02:51:20 15
Form.
I don't know why they were
on the list.
02:51:21 16
Objection.
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:51:22 17
02:51:25 18
Q.
Does Ms. Lambert's e-mail suggest to you
that it was a result of an agreement with Google?
02:51:29 19
MR. RUBIN:
02:51:35 20
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
I don't know if there was
02:51:36 21
an agreement with Google.
02:51:39 22
you know, recruit from one another.
02:51:42 23
yeah.
02:51:42 24
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:51:42 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
Q.
Someone agreed to not,
But I --
Okay.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 77
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:51:43
1
A.
I don't know who -- who agreed to that
02:51:45
2
02:51:48
3
02:51:50
4
02:51:52
5
MR. RUBIN:
02:51:55
6
THE WITNESS:
02:51:57
7
02:51:57
8
02:51:59
9
and why.
Q.
Do you know who else, aside from Google,
would have been the other party to the agreement?
Objection.
I do not, no.
BY MR. HARVEY:
Q.
Do you think it's likely that it was, in
fact, Google?
02:51:59 10
MR. RUBIN:
02:52:01 11
THE WITNESS:
02:52:02 12
Objection.
I -- I do.
Q.
Okay.
You do think that it is likely
that it was Google?
02:52:06 15
MR. RUBIN:
02:52:07 16
THE WITNESS:
02:52:10 17
Form.
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:52:03 13
02:52:05 14
Form.
Objection.
Form.
It appears to be Google.
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:52:12 18
Q.
Okay.
When -- when Ms. Lambert wrote,
02:52:14 19
"Please add Google to your hands-off list," did
02:52:19 20
you understand that to mean that -- that you
02:52:23 21
should communicate this to the -- the recruiters
02:52:27 22
you supervised?
02:52:28 23
A.
Yes.
02:52:28 24
Q.
Okay.
02:52:31 25
And so this would have been
discussed at the weekly meetings you described
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 78
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:52:33
1
earlier?
02:52:34
2
A.
Potentially, yes.
02:52:38
3
Q.
Okay.
02:52:41
4
says, "Please also be sure to honor our side of
02:52:45
5
the deal."
02:52:48
6
02:52:49
7
that meant in terms of what she expected you and
02:52:52
8
other Apple recruiters to do to honor's Apple side
02:52:57
9
of that deal?
Okay.
Oh, and at the end she
Do you have an understanding of what
02:52:57 10
MR. RUBIN:
02:52:59 11
THE WITNESS:
02:53:01 12
Form.
I do know what she
expected.
02:53:02 13
Objection.
BY MR. HARVEY:
02:53:02 14
Q.
And what did she expect?
02:53:04 15
A.
That we wouldn't cold call in to folks
02:53:09 16
at Google.
02:53:11 17
Q.
Okay.
Did you ever become aware while
02:53:26 18
you were at Apple of any instances in which Google
02:53:31 19
recruited from Apple and Apple took steps to
02:53:35 20
contact Google to try to enforce the agreement
02:53:37 21
that was reached?
02:53:39 22
MR. RUBIN:
02:53:40 23
THE WITNESS:
02:53:41 24
Form.
I do not recall any of
those instances.
02:53:44 25
Objection.
BY MR. HARVEY:
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 79
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
02:53:44
1
Q.
02:53:46
2
that has been previously introduced as Plaintiffs'
02:53:51
3
Exhibit 277 at Ms. Lambert's deposition.
02:53:56
4
you could please take a look at it and let me know
02:54:00
5
once you've had a chance to review it.
02:54:02
6
02:54:26
7
02:54:30
8
02:54:32
9
A.
Okay.
I'm going to show you an e-mail
And if
Sure.
I'm done.
Q.
Do you recall hearing anything about
instances like this in which Steve Jobs would
02:54:35 10
reach out to -- to another company and say, "Stop
02:54:40 11
recruiting into Apple"?
02:54:42 12
02:54:45 13
A.
such things, no.
02:54:48 14
02:54:48 15
I -- I don't know of Steve doing any
Q.
Do you know of anyone else at Apple
doing such things?
02:54:51 16
A.
I don't.
02:54:51 17
Q.
Okay.
Do you recall there being any
02:55:12 18
similar agreements with other companies aside from
02:55:15 19
Google in which -- in which Apple and the other
02:55:19 20
company agreed not to recruit from one another?
02:55:21 21
MR. RUBIN:
02:55:24 22
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
As I mentioned earlier, we
02:55:27 23
could not recruit into Adobe -- or excuse me,
02:55:34 24
NVIDIA.
02:55:44 25
I -- the list wasn't a huge deal to my team
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
I do recall Adobe being on the list.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
But
Page: 80
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
03:51:21
1
recollection of anything you -- you asked
03:51:24
2
Ms. Raymond to do for you?
03:51:27
3
03:51:28
4
03:51:35
5
03:51:35
6
do-not-call list at Google that you were familiar
03:51:38
7
with?
03:51:46
8
03:51:47
9
A.
It -- it -- it does not refresh my
recollection.
Q.
A.
Does this look like the -- the
So I -MR. HARVEY:
03:51:49 10
MR. RUBIN:
03:51:50 11
THE WITNESS:
Excuse me.
Pardon me.
Bless you.
I can't recall the whole
03:51:51 12
list.
There were some standout companies just due
03:51:56 13
to the size of the company.
03:51:59 14
does seem like a plausible list, from what I
03:52:03 15
recall.
03:52:03 16
BY MR. HARVEY:
But, I mean, this
03:52:04 17
Q.
Was Apple a standout company?
03:52:08 18
A.
It was.
03:52:10 19
Q.
And I think you said size was an issue
03:52:13 20
in terms of whether it was standout or not.
03:52:16 21
Would you use that as a way to describe
03:52:18 22
Apple in the sense of why Apple is standing out to
03:52:20 23
you?
03:52:21 24
MR. RUBIN:
03:52:22 25
THE WITNESS:
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
Objection.
Form.
No, I mean -- I believe
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 105
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
03:52:27
1
Apple was trying to develop, you know, a
03:52:31
2
relationship with Google and potentially vice
03:52:34
3
versa, so ...
03:52:36
4
BY MR. HARVEY:
03:52:37
5
Q.
And that's why Apple stood out to you?
03:52:42
6
A.
That could be a reason, just because
03:52:44
7
03:52:47
8
03:52:49
9
it's -- and it's a tech icon.
Q.
Mh-hmm.
Okay.
Would you say that --
that Intel was a big employer in the Valley?
03:52:55 10
MR. RUBIN:
03:52:57 11
THE WITNESS:
03:52:58 12
Form.
Intel was one of the
largest employers.
03:52:59 13
Objection.
BY MR. HARVEY:
03:53:01 14
Q.
Okay.
Okay.
Aside from the companies
03:53:07 15
listed, I'd like to direct your attention to the
03:53:09 16
kind of preface before where -- well, first, you
03:53:12 17
know, I think I forgot to ask you this:
03:53:15 18
in fact, receive this from Tiffany Raymond on --
03:53:18 19
on Friday, September 21st, 2007?
03:53:21 20
03:53:25 21
A.
I -- I can't recall if I did.
Did you,
It
appears as though that e-mail is addressed to me.
03:53:38 22
03:53:41 23
Q.
Okay.
She says:
"Here are the do not call
03:53:43 24
companies.
03:53:45 25
sensitive ones as well.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
There are a bunch of
Do you want
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 106
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
03:53:47
1
me to include those as well?
There
03:53:50
2
isn't one doc with this info.
03:53:53
3
embedded within a large Google PDF.
03:53:56
4
Let me know if you want this in a
03:53:58
5
Word doc or something."
03:53:59
6
03:54:01
7
03:54:03
8
03:54:06
9
It is
And then here's what I'm going to ask
you about.
Where it starts:
"The following companies," and
then a parenthetical, "and by
03:54:08 10
association, their subsidiaries
03:54:11 11
listed in Appendix A," end parens,
03:54:14 12
"have special agreements with Google
03:54:16 13
and are part of the 'Do not call'
03:54:20 14
list."
03:54:20 15
Do you see all of that?
03:54:21 16
A.
I do.
03:54:23 17
Q.
Okay.
Is that the kind of language that
03:54:25 18
was used at Google to describe the do-not-call
03:54:26 19
list, specifically, you know, companies that have
03:54:31 20
special agreements with Google?
03:54:33 21
MR. RUBIN:
03:54:35 22
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
I don't know how a company
03:54:37 23
got on the list, you know, the -- you know, kind
03:54:42 24
of the genesis of those discussions or the
03:54:45 25
process.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
So I really can't answer that.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 107
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
03:57:41
1
Q.
And then dropping down to where it
03:57:45
2
starts talking about the do-not-call list, it has
03:57:47
3
that same language that -- that Ms. Raymond quoted
03:57:54
4
in her earlier e-mail, correct?
03:57:57
5
A.
This e-mail right here?
03:57:59
6
Q.
Yeah.
03:58:00
7
03:58:02
8
that says, "The following companies" through "do
03:58:06
9
not cold call list."
And -- and specifically the sentence
03:58:09 10
A.
It does appear to be the same.
03:58:12 11
Q.
Okay.
Could you please read through the
03:58:18 12
three -- and if you already have, you can just
03:58:21 13
tell me -- the three elements of the -- of the
03:58:25 14
do-not-call-list protocol that -- let's see.
03:58:29 15
guess it starts with four and then goes through
03:58:32 16
six.
03:58:33 17
A.
Yes, I've read it.
03:58:34 18
Q.
Okay.
I
Does that comport with your
03:58:36 19
understanding of how Google abided by or followed
03:58:41 20
the -- the other protocol as described here?
03:58:45 21
A.
03:58:45 22
It does.
MR. RUBIN:
03:58:46 23
Objection.
Form.
03:58:47 24
Objection.
BY MR. HARVEY:
03:58:48 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
Q.
Okay.
And is this the same way, in your
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 110
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
03:58:56
1
experience, that Apple's hands-off list worked?
03:58:59
2
MR. RUBIN:
03:59:04
3
THE WITNESS:
03:59:05
4
specific -- if there was a specific procedure at
03:59:09
5
Apple.
03:59:20
6
and was interested in working at Apple, it was
03:59:24
7
not -- not an issue if they were on the
03:59:25
8
do-not-call list.
03:59:27
9
BY MR. HARVEY:
03:59:27 10
03:59:29 11
Q.
Form.
I don't recall the
I do know that if someone came to Apple
And does that sound like Number 5 to
you?
03:59:30 12
03:59:31 13
Objection.
MR. RUBIN:
Objection.
Form.
BY MR. HARVEY:
03:59:31 14
Q.
I'm sorry.
Number 6?
03:59:33 15
MR. RUBIN:
Same objection.
03:59:40 16
THE WITNESS:
I don't know if they were
03:59:41 17
worded the same.
03:59:44 18
standpoint, I do recall it being the same.
03:59:47 19
BY MR. HARVEY:
03:59:49 20
Q.
Okay.
But from a procedural
And then in terms of the -- the
03:59:52 21
first part, not to directly cold call in to the
03:59:55 22
companies on that list, is that the same way you
03:59:58 23
understood Apple's hands-off list to work?
04:00:01 24
MR. RUBIN:
04:00:05 25
THE WITNESS:
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
Objection.
Form.
In theory, it was very
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 111
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
04:00:06
1
similar, where we wouldn't cold call companies
04:00:09
2
that -- you know, that I was instructed not to at
04:00:16
3
Apple.
04:00:16
4
BY MR. HARVEY:
04:00:17
5
04:00:21
6
document, it's pretty specific in that it states
04:00:24
7
that the -- these rules also apply to the
04:00:29
8
subsidiaries of the companies on the list.
04:00:32
9
Q.
Mh-hmm.
Okay.
And then here in this
Do you see that?
04:00:37 10
A.
I do see that.
04:00:38 11
Q.
And then I won't ask you anything
04:00:41 12
specifically, but I'll just ask you in general,
04:00:42 13
that throughout the attachment, the document lists
04:00:47 14
various companies that are subsidiaries of
04:00:48 15
different companies on the list to identify which
04:00:50 16
ones those are.
04:00:52 17
Do you see that?
04:00:52 18
A.
I see the list.
04:00:55 19
Q.
Okay.
Do you know whether Apple had the
04:00:57 20
same approach in that once a company was on the
04:01:01 21
hands-off list, all of its subsidiaries were also
04:01:05 22
hands off?
04:01:08 23
A.
I'm pretty sure that was the case.
04:01:12 24
Q.
Okay.
04:01:15 25
Thank you.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
Okay.
You can put that aside.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 112
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
04:01:16
1
Okay.
04:01:45
2
what the consequences potentially were to a
04:01:50
3
recruiter at Google who failed to follow the rules
04:01:54
4
set out in the document we just went through?
04:01:57
5
MR. RUBIN:
04:01:59
6
THE WITNESS:
04:02:01
7
any consequences being discussed, if they failed
04:02:07
8
to abide by the do-not-call-list protocol.
04:02:11
9
BY MR. HARVEY:
04:02:11 10
Q.
Do you have any recollection of
Objection.
Form.
I -- I -- I don't recall
Do you recall any instances in which
04:02:15 11
someone at Google was punished for failing to
04:02:18 12
follow the do-not-call list?
04:02:20 13
04:02:23 14
A.
Q.
And when did you first hear about that
it.
04:02:26 15
04:02:30 16
I heard that someone was terminated for
termination?
04:02:31 17
A.
I don't recall.
04:02:38 18
Q.
And do you recall anything else about
04:02:41 19
that -- that recruiter, about, you know, the
04:02:46 20
circumstances that gave rise to her termination?
04:02:50 21
04:02:51 22
A.
I believe it was in regards to not
abiding by the protocol.
04:02:57 23
Q.
Do you know the way in which that
04:02:59 24
recruiter failed to follow the protocol, I mean,
04:03:03 25
kind of how she violated it?
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 113
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
04:03:05
1
A.
From what I understand, she made a cold
04:03:08
2
04:03:17
3
04:03:21
4
generally known to recruiters at Google and that
04:03:24
5
someone got fired for failing to follow the
04:03:29
6
protocol?
04:03:30
7
MR. RUBIN:
04:03:32
8
THE WITNESS:
04:03:32
9
call -- excuse me -- in to Apple.
Q.
Do you know whether that was sort of
was generally known.
Objection.
Form.
I -- I don't know if that
The Google recruiting team
04:03:35 10
was huge, and there was a lot of turnover.
04:03:38 11
was -- it was -- I know it was tough for them to
04:03:43 12
keep, you know, the flow of information
04:03:47 13
consistent.
04:03:50 14
BY MR. HARVEY:
04:03:50 15
Q.
So it
Do you recall whether you told any of
04:03:52 16
the recruiters you supervised to be careful to
04:03:55 17
follow the protocol because there might be
04:03:57 18
consequences if you don't?
04:03:59 19
A.
I don't recall myself saying that
04:04:03 20
there -- there will be consequences.
04:04:08 21
part of my job that I'm pretty confident that I
04:04:11 22
instructed them to not proactively or cold call
04:04:15 23
folks on that list.
04:04:18 24
04:04:20 25
Q.
Do you recall anyone else sending that
message to the recruiters?
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
I do know as
In other words, if you
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 114
Deposition of Patrick Flynn
In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
1
I, Kathleen A. Wilkins, Certified
2
Shorthand Reporter licensed in the State of
3
California, License No. 10068, hereby certify that
4
the deponent was by me first duly sworn and the
5
foregoing testimony was reported by me and was
6
thereafter transcribed with computer-aided
7
transcription; that the foregoing is a full,
8
complete and true record of said proceedings.
9
I further certify that I am not of
10
counsel or attorney for either of any of the
11
parties in the foregoing proceeding and caption
12
named or in any way interested in the outcome of
13
the cause in said caption.
14
The dismantling, unsealing, or unbinding
15
of the original transcript will render the
16
reporter's Certificates null and void.
17
18
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
my hand this day:
April 4, 2013.
19
_______ Reading and Signing was requested.
20
_______ Reading and Signing was waived.
21
___X___ Reading and signing was not requested.
22
_________________________
23
KATHLEEN A. WILKINS
24
CSR 10068, RPR-RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page: 146

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.